The feminist hatespeech/hypocrisy/stupidity/lies/pathetic/misinformation/etc. thread

[Feckless]

This is interesting to learn. I wonder how Nintendo would feel if they were to learn that MEN are downloading ILLEGAL, PIRATED copies of the game software that has taken months and even years to develop, create, and test. Only to be ILLEGALLY downloaded by LAW BREAKERS such as 6ame.

And a cursory search has revelaed what could be 6ame's youtube account. The hatred for women is dripping over there.

Anyway Nintendo beware - woman haters from antimisandry.com are ILLEGALLY downloading your software in order to avoid purchasing said software.

That made me laugh out loud....

[frostyboy]

Lauren believes that 99% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men:

Why can't everybody talk about the problem of domestic violence for what it is - 99% of the time abusive, suffocating, intimidating men.

Why does it have to whitewashed into some 'parental issue'? To be 'patriarchy correct' - the opposite of PC.

[frostyboy]

Lara thinks that most men are paedophiles:

Yes redheadinred, but most men are paedophiles if they are looking for extreme youth in a woman in the first place.

And here's some more lunacy from Jennifer Drew:

In reality there is no difference between so-called child porn and 'adult' (nee for males) porn.

[themanonthestreet]

TMOTS - your above post has been published on an anti-MRA blog:

Thanks for letting me know.

Not that I could give a shit about that loon. Responding to it's garbage posts is exactly what it wants....

TMOTS

[Marx]

Thanks for letting me know.

Not that I could give a shit about that loon. Responding to it's garbage posts is exactly what it wants....

TMOTS

Indeed, I did respond to the Nintendo post, and I am the *only* comment there LOL. How sad.

[frostyboy]

Anonymous said:

I really don't think men as a species are capable of caring about women or girls at all, they just want to own women, have sex available or provide for their property upkeep.

and:

Perhaps men really aren't fully human afterall. I really wonder beccause there is no action on their part that I can see IRL. Blogs like this are rare to non-existent. I don't think men want to care about anyone but their own selfish interests, and they'll keep on doing this till the end of time, that and letting rapists out of jail so that these men can continue to have access to children.

[frostyboy]

Julian Real said:

But, I do not wish to shame or silence anyone who does, in fact, hate men

and:

Should there be a trial, perhaps a class action suit leveled against men by women in a feminist court, I hope that all men who are living their lives without regularly confronting other men on our violence against and domination of women are found guilty of being accomplices to the garrisoned crime of gynocide.

[frostyboy]

Jennifer Drew said:

The reason why terms such as 'parental issue' and parents' rights are commonly used is because the powers that be - meaning the government deliberately use gender neutral language because these officials in their wisdom consider naming the gender they are really discussing promotes inequality.

Hence when government depts. or even policy papers when specifically referring to 'mothers' re-label them as 'parents' which not only invisibilises women as mothers but infers fathers too have as much responsibility for childcare as mothers. Patently untrue but gender neutral language hides a great many inequalities.

Or to put it another way - government of whatever ilk must never, ever make visibile male accountability because the only persons held accountable are always women!

I'm sure Piscesmoon you are fully aware of the reasons why abusive and/or violent fathers continue to be given access to the mother's children even when the father's violence is proven. It is because government policy and legislation states that children need access to both parents, even when one parent has committed violence against the other parent or parental guardian.

Gender neutral language again - not forgetting the family court system which is carefully hidden away from the prying eyes of the public. Family courts operate with little or no accountability with regards to the decisions they make and the myth all children need a 'male role model' continues unabated.

What does this mean for the mother and her child/children who want to be able to live their lives without fear of the male partner/ex partner committing violence against them? Why the answer is supervised visitation rights and even then 'supervised' is not always put in practice.

Apologies Piscesmoon and Claire too, if what I've written you already know but I do know most individuals who haven't had direct experience of the family court system are not aware of how legislation has ensured 'male rights and fathers rights now supercede the mothers' and children's rights to live lives free of interpersonal male violence.

[Celtic Druid]

Jennifer Drew said:

The reason why terms such as 'parental issue' and parents' rights are commonly used is because the powers that be - meaning the government deliberately use gender neutral language because these officials in their wisdom consider naming the gender they are really discussing promotes inequality.

Hence when government depts. or even policy papers when specifically referring to 'mothers' re-label them as 'parents' which not only invisibilises women as mothers but infers fathers too have as much responsibility for childcare as mothers. Patently untrue but gender neutral language hides a great many inequalities.

Or to put it another way - government of whatever ilk must never, ever make visibile male accountability because the only persons held accountable are always women!

I'm sure Piscesmoon you are fully aware of the reasons why abusive and/or violent fathers continue to be given access to the mother's children even when the father's violence is proven. It is because government policy and legislation states that children need access to both parents, even when one parent has committed violence against the other parent or parental guardian.

Gender neutral language again - not forgetting the family court system which is carefully hidden away from the prying eyes of the public. Family courts operate with little or no accountability with regards to the decisions they make and the myth all children need a 'male role model' continues unabated.

What does this mean for the mother and her child/children who want to be able to live their lives without fear of the male partner/ex partner committing violence against them? Why the answer is supervised visitation rights and even then 'supervised' is not always put in practice.

Apologies Piscesmoon and Claire too, if what I've written you already know but I do know most individuals who haven't had direct experience of the family court system are not aware of how legislation has ensured 'male rights and fathers rights now supercede the mothers' and children's rights to live lives free of interpersonal male violence.

This fruit loop obviously lives in a fantasy world where the reality is reversed.

[Meadester]

Thanks for letting me know.

Not that I could give a shit about that loon. Responding to it's garbage posts is exactly what it wants....

TMOTS

I did respond to the post about you TMOTS. Not that I think you need me to defend you I just thought she needed to be straightened out about the First Amendment, specifically that it doesn't constrain private entities like blogger, and it certainly isn't meant to shield anyone from criticism. Mainly, I was curious to see if she would publish it, which to her credit she did, that's more than most radfems will do. OTOH, she hasn't published my followup commenting answering her silly attempt at rebuttal. Maybe she just hasn't gotten around to it but I'm not holding my breath. EDIT: She has published my followup comment since I first posted this. She may have read this and decided she had to, in order to save face, but I'll still give her credit where credit's due.

Anyway, don't worry about her getting attention for this brief moment. When Marx and I both get tired of commenting there she will be as sad and lonely as she was to begin with and back to talking to herself.

[frostyboy]

Anonymous said:

"By-stander behavior" is a very good phrase for describing just how cowardly men really are in their silence about what other men are doing to women every day.

I believe men are cowards, I believe they are animals beyond redemption. I see no chance that they will ever change, nor do they have the moral or intellectual capacity to do so. The dumb things men say about women every day of the week would fill the Libary of Congress.

True story, just yesterday. A gay man told me, "I didn't know that lesbians liked Halloween." I kid you not. This was a simple statement, not earth shattering, but imagine someone saying this to you!! "How many lesbians do you know?" This is typical of how men are ignorant, how they will actually honestly reveal this to you. They are clueless in the small things, incompetant in the large things.

So what we have to do as feminists, is to write them off. To say that they are too primitive, too cowardly matter anymore.

The challenge is for women to band together, to simply go and do what women must to gain freedom.

The war on women is every day. The killing of young women on college campuses-- Yale and the attack on a young woman yesterday at UCLA is what men do. Hear of an attack on a woman somewhere, you know a man did it without even having to read the news.

I think white men are particularly insideous. They actually believe they are different from those male muslim clerics who write the law, enforce the law, and then think they are the experts on everything.
Men are indeed the know it alls of the universe, and I believe they are morally incapable of anything meaningful in the world, unless it benefits them.

Men will do absolutely nothing unless they are the beneficiaries, and the centers of attention. They drain women like vampires, they terrorize public space and they kill women.

What if we had a feminist war crimes tribunal against all men worldwide? Well I know what I'd do, and it wouldn't be jail time that's for sure. I wouldn't bother with a trial, because that would give more attention to the monsters. They shouldn't even be allowed to have a trial for the crimes they've done defy description. They sit by age after age and do nothing about other men. NOTHING at all, no words, no outrage, no commentary, nothing. Men are killing and raping and creating these horrifying laws, and other men are just sitting home watching a football game. That's what men do in America, they play ball, they watch repetitive games, they deaden themselves with porn with mindless male 'banter'-- womanhating words.

Men hate women with a passion. They believe women are objects. I hate men, I hate them as monsters, as clueless as ignorant idiots that I am forced to interact with on a daily basis. I see them close up in work situations, listen to their simeon minds. As far as I'm concerned the "bystander behavior" won't ever stop, because men are cowards.
It's why the cover this up with all their boring macho posturing... it is about masking just how socially cowardly they really are.

A man who can't stand up to a sexist or degrading comment about women coming out of the mouth of another man is a coward. And they revel in this cowardace, they pretend ignorance all the time. Perhaps if you held a gun to a man's head and quizzed him on the position of women in the world, what would happen? What would happen if women controlled the guns, had the power of life and death over every man on the planet 24 hours a day? What would happen? I predict that they would continue to say sexist things, and then we'd kill them, and they would continue with this, because that is who they are. They can't change, because they are men.

So the key is for women to rise up, to not bother with these moral incompetants. I really don't see any other way.

and:

And I just had to add how interesting it is that it is ALL men against and ALL women's groups in the streets here.

Notice how NO men speak up for the women's protest, not even a small group of men countering the gangs of men yelling at the women protestors.

Again, I think men, who pride themselves on courage in war time, really have no courage at all in the cause of women's freedom worldwide. This social timidity of pack animals, known as men, is fascinating behavior. It renders them morally or even mentally incapable of confronting other men in public.

Women I think delude themselves into thinking men are just or that they would ever stand up against other men to change the course of male violence worldwide, but they really won't. EVER.

So if we know that men will never confront other men or stop other men from raping in packs, or even attacking women in packs, what does this mean?

Feminism must change its tactics, if we are dealing with men who will never change, that's what it means, and women must know that men have no intention of risking their lives shouting down male packs attacking women. We know that the male clerics of Islam are really no different from fundamentalist men in America or liberal men.

We know that men kill women, slash the throats of women lab partners, do everything in their power to sexually degrade women.

We know this as feminists, we have such clear evidense of this. So what does this mean for women as we continue to get our freedom? Does it mean that we can hope men as a species will die out, as Mary Daly suggests? Does it mean that men could become extinct, as women create new methods of reproduction?

What does the bystander bahvior of men worldwide signal to the world?

[frostyboy]

Anonymous said:

This comparison of men to 'good Germans" is excellent. The thing is, Germans actually felt shame for their behavior under Hitler, men never feel shame for what they do under male supremacy. Men get angry when their Hitler behavior is exposed.

There is no moral capacity in men. It's why they create deadening ball games. It's why they can't listen to women. It's why I am beginning to think that men are inherently morally and willfully evil. Good Germans, who are we talking about here? German men, or perhaps women who don't rise up and destroy the male race might be considered as bad as the Germans who didn't stop Hitler, just a thought here.

[frostyboy]

Anonymous said:

P.S. Jennifer Drew awaits a deluge of complaints by men. Of course they complain about everything women do to protect themselves and to expose the monsters that are men in the world.

You are dealing with half the human race that simply should have its humanity revoked. I don't think we can put men in the category of human anymore.

How many men do women kill, rape and terrorize each day? And they get angry when we write about their crimes? They call this manhating, well of course I hate men. Why wouldn't I? They just prove me right about them every day of the year. They never ever deviate from their massive clueless bystander behavior.

Women have to wake up to this, and not be fooled by the group that never intends to do anything at all about violence against women by men. No, nothing at all.

[frostyboy]

Anonymous said:

I like the idea of the shock collars being put on all men, say starting at the age of 5 or so. Any girl or woman who obected to being "imposed upon" would just push the button and "shcok." If we did this 24-hours a day to all men worldwide, I wonder how long it would take to train them not to "impose" themselves in any way upon women or girls?

and:

Let's have a week, where men are not allowed to talk to any women at all, unless the woman talks to them first. Wouldn't that be interesting.

But still, the shock collars have their appeal.

[frostyboy]

Julian Real said:

I wish there were electric collars on men so that any time
they made a move towards a woman, with the intent to do what
you and I would call "impose themselves" (they would call
anything else but), the collar would elicit a shock sufficient to
get them to stop in their tracks. Men enjoy shocking canines
this way--I've seen men enjoy doign it. So clearly it's "acceptable
behavior" to do to men too, right?